Dan Cathy, the CEO of the popular Chick-Fil-A fast food franchise, is a Christian. A couple weeks ago, he granted an interview to the Baptist Press in North Carolina. Here is the context of that interview:

The company invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation (WinShape.com). The name comes from the idea of shaping people to be winners.

It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center modeled after the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove.

"That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries," Cathy added.

Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

"We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

That's right, kiddies. Our President, who runs campaign ads on televsion every day accusing Romney of investing in companies that outsource jobs to foreign countries, IS GUILTY OF THE VERY SAME THING HIMSELF.

Here's a Fox News segment with host Megyn Kelly, in which Kelly shows her disgust with the mud-slinging misdirection of our current presidential candidates. I share her view of this campaign, particularly of the campaign ads, which are filled with negativity and do almost nothing in the way of addressing the enormous problems our country faces. We deserve better (don't we ?):

We don't have to listen to Republicans explain how Obama has failed as President. We can take the opposition party out of the equation almost completely, and just listen to Obama judge himself.

Senator Barack Obama, March 2006: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America ‘s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America ‘s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, “the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a human talking point. You put her in front of a TV screen, pull her string, and she regurgitates whatever partisan angle the Democratic party has programmed into her on any given week. Yesterday on MSNBC, the angle was - Mitt Romney doesn't care about America. Here's Debbie:

"It would be nice if we had a candidate for president who was committed to America. Mitt Romney is committed to making sure that either he makes the most money as humanly possible, or his investors do. And that's evidenced by his track record in shipping jobs overseas and making sure that he has investments that we don't know why he invested in offshore accounts. But most folks that I know, they make their investments in a bank in America, most American business men invest here and if you're running for president, that certainly should be your commitment."

Here, Ms. Schultz would have us believe Romney is running for President solely to enrich himself and his rich friends. It's certainly not the first time I've heard this contention from Democrats. I have no idea why Romney would want to become President only to enrich himself and his pals, seeing as how Romney already has more money than he will ever need, but they don't ask such questions of Democrats on MSNBC. Instead, MSNBC leads the parade for these bizarre Democrat narratives…because MSNBC is a serious news organization.

Ms. Schultz seems deeply confused about the difference between Romney's private sector business career and the job he would take on if elected President. She seems to believe them to be the same job, that we'd suddenly transform into the United States Of Bain Capital with Romney at the helm [insert maniacal Dr. Evil laugh here]. This view doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I suppose it's not so surprising, seeing as how, in my experience, many liberal Democrats don't seem to understand the private sector or trust it any further than they can throw it. Dems often leave me with the impression that the private sector is their shadowy enemy, not to be trusted. Kind of like the Illuminati. And liberal Democrats have already identified twin Dr. Evil's in their conspiratorial passion play. They are called [cue the opening notes of Beethoven's 5th]] the KOCH BROTHERS. Sure, the Koch Brothers employ 50,000 people in the USA, but they are some evil dudes in liberal eyes, mainly because they give a lot of money to Republican organizations. What more proof of evil is necessary than that ? These evildoers must be destroyed. As for those 50,000 jobs…well, we're going to need lots of new IRS agents to chase down ObamaCare criminals. It'll all work out somehow.

Now we can add Romney to the Democrats' Dr. Evil list, and just in time for the election !!! How convenient.

Schultz called for Romney to release like ten years of his past tax records, because Democrats need to dig up some dirt…er, I mean, because Democrats are interested in transparency (as long as the words "Fast And Furious" are not involved). Democrats want Romney to come clean, just like all other Presidents have done… except for Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, and on and on, who only made their tax returns public starting with the year they were running for President.

But this year it's different, say the Democrats, because Romney has…da, da, da, dum… OFFSHORE ACCOUNTS !!! Sure, they are perfectly legal offshore accounts almost all held in a blind trust, which means Romney doesn't even control those investments, and there is no indication Romney has done anything illegal, but Democrats know the word "offshore" is sure to frighten at least some voters away from Romney, just like Team Obama's phony characterization of Romney as a "corporate raider" will hopefully do. Feel the Hope and Change. Democrats insist that American Presidents holding offshore accounts is unseemly and downright un-American…which, unfortunately, made offshore account holder Bill Clinton un-American too, darn the luck. And I probably shouldn't even mention John Kerry, who, ironically, was the Democrat nominee for President in 2004. Kerry paid a lower tax rate than Romney does, and Kerry never put his investments in a blind trust, which created conflicts of interest with legislation Kerry had to vote upon. Kerry avoided taxes. No word on why Romney's riches are such a sore spot for Democrats now, when they nominated the richest guy in the Senate for President only eight years ago. It must be the same thinking that led liberals to call Bush II a "chickenhawk" every other minute, but not Obama. Btw, Bush served in the military. Obama did not. Go figure.

Our economy created 80,000 jobs overall in June, the third month in a row in which the economy has slowed. The unemployment rate remained unchanged at 8.2 percent, making it 41 months in a row with unemployment above 8 percent (virtually Obama's entire presidency). We are still down 5 million jobs from the Great Recession, which caused 8.8 million job losses. We have recovered only 3.8 million of those jobs. I'm not even counting the additional jobs we should be creating based on population growth. It takes in the neighborhood of 140,000 new jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. We have a historically low labor participation rate, with millions moving out of the work force or underemployed. And this has all happened as we've run up over $5 trillion in new federal debt on Obama's watch. This year's federal deficit is about $1.3 trillion. We can't even create enough jobs living in this artificial, unsustainable, debt-fueled economy. This is the first recession in my lifetime from which we haven't experienced a robust recovery. Instead, we have merely returned to a weak normalcy, and even that has been fading this quarter. Not good.

"You know, we learned this morning that our businesses created 84,000 new jobs last month, and that overall means that businesses have created 4.4 million jobs over the past 28 months, including 500,000 new manufacturing jobs. That's a step in the right direction," Obama said.

For purposes of comparison, the last President to inherit a severe recession was Ronald Reagan. Unemployment soared to over 10 percent during Reagan's first term, but the economy recovered and turned around, with 5.3 million new jobs during Reagan's first term (with a significantly smaller population). Obama is still below zero in net jobs created in his first term. At this point in the Reagan recovery, the economy was creating well over 300,000 jobs per month, and economic growth was in the 6 percent range. THAT is economic recovery, and we still have not experienced it under Obama.

The important matter is, how do we get out of these doldrums ? How do we get America back to work without bankrupting the country ? We have two different visions coming from the Democrats and Republicans.

The Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, is proposing lower tax rates to spur demand and investment, implementing a regulatory framework that will promote bank lending and investment, expanding foreign markets for our goods, and implementing a pro-jobs energy policy. These are ideas I can understand from an economic standpoint…but Team Obama hates them. The White House prefers something it calls "from the middle out". I'm not sure what this means, but here's VP Biden to try and describe it:

“[Romney believes] somehow, that those so-called job creators will make everything okay for the rest of us,” Biden said at the National Education Association conference. “We believe that the way to build this country is the way we always have, from the middle out . . . [to] invest in the things that have always made our economy grow: innovation, research, development, infrastructure, and education.”

Oy vey. Biden actually refereed to the private sector, our economic engine, as "those so-called job creators". I fear Joey has been inside the beltway for far too long. He thinks it's the government that creates jobs. This is where I always run into problems with the snake oil the Obamanauts are trying to sell. Even when federal spending is at a historic high, with the accompanying historic rise in debt and deficits, all the Obamanauts can do is propose even MORE spending. What are they smoking ? Let's sweep the White House for crackpipes. Somebody's in denial over there.

Then the Obamanauts pretend raising marginal tax rates on the rich (the up-is-down "fair share" argument) is somehow going to pay for it all, when they know darned well it will not. Liberals talk endlessly about tax increases to pay for all their "helpful" government programs (that are bankrupting us), but they fail to mention that the huge tax increases coming in January 2013 and again in 2014 are one of many reasons employers are hesitant to hire now. Liberals like to reminisce fondly about the good old days of the 1950's, when the top marginal tax rate was 90%, as if that would somehow be a good idea now. What it would really do is kill our economy deader than a doornail. In the 50's, America found itself in the unique situation of being the only economic game in town following WWII. Europe was in a shambles, Japan was decimated, and China and Russia were still closed societies. We succeeded IN SPITE OF those high confiscatory tax rates, not because of them, and those days are long gone…unless we want to fight and win WWIII to recreate that 50's environment. I would definitely recommend against that course of action. Unlike progressives, who ironically prefer to live in the past, I believe we must act like the 21st century globalists we are. It's not going away folks, not even if we close our eyes, kick our heels together three times, and say "there's no place like the 50's, there's no place like the 50's". It would be nice, but it's not gonna happen.

Plus, nobody really paid those 90% tax rates, not even in the 50's and early 60's. I was listening to Harvard economist Larry Lindsey on CSPAN the other day, and he said in 1960, a grand total of EIGHT people paid that 90% rate. Not much of a gamechanger, even if those tax rates were a good idea, which they aren't, other than in the fevered brains of the Occupiers.

If you pay attention to politics, you're gonna hear some really bizarre things come out of the mouthes of politicians. But even after all these years, they still surprise me sometimes.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's creative 5-4 split decision upholding the ObamaCare mandate on the grounds it is a tax, Democrats are surprising me by refusing to take 'yes" for an answer. Top Democrats are still insisting the mandate is NOT a tax.

The policy is not a tax increase because people have a way of avoiding it, Waxman said.

"It's a penalty, but through the tax code, because that's an efficient way of picking it up," he said. "So when Republicans say this is a tax — and I've seen charges this is the biggest tax increase in American history — that's ridiculous. This is not a real tax increase. It's a requirement that everybody get health insurance."